Comments on: Colin Powell, Joe Lieberman Switch Sides… And Boris Johnson Too!

By: Prestashop Templates

Prestashop Templates — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:06:05 +0000

Extra Reading…

[...]we like to honor other sites on the web, even if they aren’t related to us, by linking to them. Below are some sites worth checking out[...]…

By: Myles

Myles — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:45:23 +0000

The nhs is as good as it can be in its current state. It needs a radical overhaul, i used to work for the NHS a long time ago and i guarantee you that there are a lot of idiots in jobs who dont know what the fuck they are doing.

My boss at the time didn’t have the faintest idea what he was talking about. The NHS should be controlled by doctors rather than some dude sat in an office going to meetings to discuss how they can spend money rather than looking at the needs and then applying as needed.

My friends granddad is in hospital, he says “there are not enough nurses but thats the nhs you have to expect it” and it is true, there aren’t, but who wants a job in the nhs any more?

By: libertariangirl

libertariangirl — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 06:09:48 +0000

I would agree that local rule is usually best; therefore London should have a mayor. However, if it has a mayor and mayor’s office and the country also keeps all the bureaucrats who made the laws for London when there was no London mayor’s office, it’s draining the taxpayers of much-needed funds. If the UK abolished the agency/department/etc. that oversaw London previously, I’m fine with that and fine with London having a mayor.

Taxes don’t really fund free entry to museums; museums are large recipients of funds from benefactors such as the Sainsburys, etc. Most museum funding in the United States is actually private, and I would suspect it’s the same in the UK.

I know many Brits who have a problem with the NHS, actually. One family only goes private since their son almost died after the NHS not diagnosing pneumonia during routine visits over six months when they repeatedly brought him in for respiratory problems.

You can find that story in a previous blog post here:
http://www.libertariangirl.com/2008/02/22/tales-of-universal-healthcare-from-the-nhs-and-china/

In that case, their tax dollars weren’t paying for the “common good” at all.

Of course, anecdotal evidence means nothing, but I do know quite a few Brits who find problems with the NHS. They might not want to get rid of it, but they are glad there is private competition.

By: marc

marc — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:54:44 +0000

and i’d also like to make the point that many of us want important cultural events funded. we don’t leave things to private organisations here – we believe in taxation for the common good. beyond festivals & such like, tax also funds free entry to musuems and the health service. this is a model NO-ONE has a problem with, right or left, in the UK. I don’t think we are going to be agreeing on this somehow.

By: marc

marc — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:51:01 +0000

libertarian girl: what would be the difference between having a central govt. politician focussed on the capital (which would certainly be the case, if we didn’t have the mayor) and having a dedicated mayor instead?

and if its so pointless, why is the scheme being rolled out to other citities?

best intentions and all that, but its a little bit patronising to say “oh everythings so small over there, why do they bother”

marc

By: marc

marc — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:48:27 +0000

i don’t agree that london doesn’t need a mayor. this is an international city, and we need a politician focussed on our interests. while its true that we survived without one, things have run much smoother here (debatable, but i’m not talking party politics, ken vs boris here). londons issues / problems are not necessarily the same as faced by the rest of the country.

and as for the uk being small, again this is true but it has an astonishingly dense population nonetheless. over four million people live in london, which is more people than live in my home country, wales. it needs dedicated supervision and interest.

if anything, the mayor needs more powers (taxation, transport, policing), not less.

By: marc

marc — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:38:13 +0000

ooh i’ve been threatened on the internet, i’m really scared.

By: libertariangirl

libertariangirl — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:09:57 +0000

It’s different in America because there are just so many big cities, which have governments entirely separate from both state and federal. The UK is so small that it’s a bit pointless for London to have its own mayor– the UK government could just as easily handle London as it does any other city.

Nevertheless, having a mayor can do good things for publicity, which I suspect is why London wanted one. New York City has a much different feel than London, though.

By: Myles

Myles — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:56:56 +0000

The mayors office gave us an opportunity to have an election that doesn’t really matter, add extra red tape to the police system (apparently the mayor of london is in control of the police or something along those lines) and gives us all a jolly good laugh when someone who engages mouth, speaks, everyone laughs, goes home, sleeps then and then engages brain is in power!

Though america has experience of that before us?

By: libertariangirl

libertariangirl — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:24:17 +0000

And oh yes, Myles, you have an excellent point as well. All this ignores the fact that London doesn’t really need a mayor, since it didn’t have one before 2000 and still existed just fine. It would be interesting to see the mayor’s office budget and what the real return per pound is– congestion pricing could have come in anyway and what has the mayor’s office ever really done?